Opening 2 Diamonds

[32519]

The problem Flannery mainly solves comes up not when responder bids 1♠ but when he bids 1NT (forcing). Whether it causes worse problems is up to the individual user to decide,

The 1NT (forcing) is part of 2/1 which now creates a hole/flaw (a whole flaw :)) in the system. For those who play 1NT as forcing, how do you plug this hole if you fall into the anti-Flannery camp with a 4522 hand? With 4531 you can still bend the rules slightly.

[manudude03]

With 4522, rebid 2C, and with 45(31) bid the 3 card minor. The main benefit of flannery imo is that it allows a 1S to promise 5 meaning you can safely raise to 2S with 3 of them.

[32519]

It's all about the system.

Fantunes solved it in their own way.

A 1♥ opening bid promises a 5+ card suit, 14+ HCP, 11-13 HCP with 5+♥ and 4♠

1NT = 0-9, no 4-card major.

Now they use the 2♣ either as natural or Gazzilli to keep responder talking.

[the hog]

Posted in error.

[Zelandakh]

The answer to the question depends on a number of factors. In decreasing order of importance in a serious partnership, as far as I am concerned the priorities are as follows.

You mised arguably the top priority:-

 

0) Whether the local regulations allow it.

 

 

For those who play 1NT as forcing, how do you plug this hole if you fall into the anti-Flannery camp with a 4522 hand? With 4531 you can still bend the rules slightly.

One easy solution is to make 1♠ your forcing 1NT response. Kaplan Inversion is the most common example of this approach; another is to adopt a 2/1 framework where 1NT is GF with spades.

[kenberg]

I have never played Kaplan Inversion so I am not entirely sure of this, but I was under the impression that it is not allowed under the General Convention Chart (or whatever the rules are called at the most restrictive level). Maybe someone reading this knows.

 

The hole for the 4-5-2-2 hand is not severe in my experience. If, when not playing Flannery, responder is free to, and usually will, bid 1♠ when he has four and if he will usually convert 1♥-1NT-2♣ to 2♥ if he holds a doubleton then a problem arises only in the case he has at most three spades and at most one heart. This gives him a five card minor so he can pass 2♣ if his minor is clubs. If responder has 3=1=5=4 shape then it is true that he has a problem but in fact he also has at least something of problem if partner opens a Flannery 2♦ . It's true that after the Flannery call he can confidently find his 7 card fit while after 1♥-1NT-2♣ he is really working on a mystery without any clues, but this does not come up so often and sometimes it works out even when it occurs.

 

I payed Flannery long ago, then didn't play it for quite a while, and now play it with a partner who likes it. A line from an old Barbara Stanwyck movie comes to mind. "The good girls aren't as good as you think they are, and the bad girls aren't as bad. Not nearly as bad". Just think of Flannery as one of the girls.

 

I posted, mostly as an amusement, the freak hand a few responses up where I got to a lucky 5♠ after partner opened a Flannery 2♦ but for the most part I find that I get to the same contract with Flannery that I would have gotten to without Flannery. So I prefer 2♦ as a weak 2.

[mycroft]

Ken, KI *used to* be legal at GCC, but was taken off about 20 (25?) years ago. I think at the same time they restricted defences over a natural NT.

 

It is certainly legal Mid-Chart in all games, with no written defence (however, both a Pre-Alert, and a written explanation of the method (of course, nobody does the latter) is) required.

 

I have no idea why there hasn't been a push to reinstate it; it certainly isn't harder to understand, or defend against, than many GCC conventions. Maybe just the "death to transfers" mood.

 

However, on the F-word front, I would point out that it doesn't matter (in fact, it may even be more important without) if 1NT is forcing for this hand to be a bear to bid in Standard Methods. After all Flannery himself, at least at the time he needed to find a way to show 4=5s with less than reverse strength anyway, didn't play 1NT Forcing :-).

 

[Edit: I will note that one time I *do* in fact go full SB is when people play non-GCC conventions in a GCC game. It's almost never that I think it's bad, or that I don't have a defence - it's just that if I don't get to play my toys because of the GCC, they don't get to play theirs. It's amazing, when it happens, how often they "have been playing it with no problem for years."]

[Hanoi5]

I like to play Multi/17+ 4441.

[rmnka447]

Whatever choice you make for a 2 ♦ bid will have some positives and negatives. Play whatever variant fits best with your overall bidding system and style.

 

I prefer Flannery when playing any 2/1 variant. In my best and longest standing partnership, we've played Kaplan-Sheinwold (2/1 with weak NTs) for a long, long time. Throughout, Flannery has provided a simple, but not perfect, way to handle minimum range 4 ♠/ 5 ♥ hands. It does solve the rebid problem with a 4=5=2=2 hand over a forcing 1 NT. But what's often overlooked is how it makes the 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ auctions a lot simpler and cleaner. Responder has 5 ♠s when responding 1 ♠ and is not forced to bid 1 ♠ with 4 ♠ for fear of missing a 4-4 fit. Opener ability to raise ♠s becomes easier. Of course, rarely, we have a hand come up where opener has a minimum 4 ♠/ 6 ♥ hand where opener rebids hearts and we miss a 4-4 ♠ fit partscore. But the frequency of those hands is so small, we don't see it as a bar to using Flannery.

 

We have discussed from time to time switching to 2 ♦ as Mini Roman. Mini Roman addresses another problematic bidding area for K-S, minimum range 4-4-4-1 hands (especially a 1=4=4=4 hand after a 1 ♠ response). But every time we've gotten in this discussion, several outstanding results with Flannery have occurred and swayed us to stay as we are.

 

Our teammates, who also play K-S, use 2 ♦ somewhat differently. One combination plays both 2 ♣ and 2 ♦ as strong bids a la Rosenkranz's Bid Your Way to the Top. The other combinations use it as either Mini Roman or Flannery.

 

I also play quite a bit locally with a player using essentially a SAYC. We simply play 2 ♦ as a weak 2 ♦ bid.

[CSGibson]

In a natural context, I like an intermediate 2 bid - about 9-14 HCP, 6+ diamonds. It allows you to handle the bridge world hand of death (1D-1M-2D is now 15-18, 1D-1M-3D forcing to game and natural), and is a little more frequent than a weak 2 in diamonds. In fact, I like intermediate 2 bids for all 2M bids, though I don't play them in any partnership except my precision partnership, where I play an intermediate 2D only (9-12), which can have a 4 or 5 card major on the side.

[the hog]

You mised arguably the top priority:-

 

0) Whether the local regulations allow it.

 

 

Largely irrelevant in civilised bridge countries like Australia.

 

[Vampyr]

We have discussed from time to time switching to 2 ♦ as Mini Roman. Mini Roman addresses another problematic bidding area for K-S, minimum range 4-4-4-1 hands (especially a 1=4=4=4 hand after a 1 ♠ response). But every time we've gotten in this discussion, several outstanding results with Flannery have occurred and swayed us to stay as we are.

 

Can you not, in your system, open1♦ and rebid 2♣?

[Kungsgeten]

If playing 5 card majors Flannery is nice to have smoother auctions after a 1H opening. This can be combined with Kaplan Inversion (or 1S as a combination of a forcing NT and a GF relay if that is allowed) or awm's Zirconia method:

 

1H--1S = 5+ spades, then

1N = 2-5-3-3 or 4+ diamonds or any 16+

2C = 4+ clubs, limited

2D = 3 spades, unbalanced (now 2H asks min/max)

2H = 6+ hearts

2S = 3 spades, balanced

 

Instead of 2D as Flannery you may however use:

 

2C = Strong or weak with diamonds

2D = Multi

2H = Flannery

2S = Whatever you'd like

 

If playing 4 card majors Flannery is less attractive.

 

A method I've thought about is copying Fantunes 1D and 2D, but still use a strong 2C:

 

1C = 2+ clubs

1D = 14+ unbalanced with 4+ diamonds

2C = Strong

2D = 10--13 unbalanced with 5+ diamonds

 

This way you could get some game forcing hands out of 2C, making use of 3D later in the auction as something else. This is also true if playing 2D as multi with either a weak major or GF with diamonds. Using 1D as 14+ and 2D as 10--13 may be a nice idea if playing Polish Club or Swedish Club too, since the 2D rebid by opener can be used as artificial.

 

During a junior event I met a pair playing their 2D as "weak with exactly 4 diamonds and any other distribution" :)

[the hog]

I wonder how many who posted inthis thread have actually done an Imps gain/loss analysis of various openings, or whether they are just relying on what they think.

[hrothgar]

I wonder how many who posted inthis thread have actually done an Imps gain/loss analysis of various openings, or whether they are just relying on what they think.

 

I found that Frelling Two's were a big winner when I was playing them.

 

This could have been because folks were too aggressive about overcalling.

A lot of the big pluses were from defending doubled contracts where the opponents got too frisky.

[johnu]

Roman was invented, in the strong variety, not because of its intrinsic merits but because the system in use (the Roman Club) couldn't handle strong 4441 hands. In other words, it was a patch for a problem, rather than being 'wow, what a good way to handle these hands'.

 

4441 hands are rare. 17+ hands are rare. 4441 17+ hands are very rare, which means that devoting an entire opening call to them makes no sense unless you see such hands as impossible to bid.

 

They can be difficult to bid, but generally speaking standard-based bidding methods can cope reasonably well with them, altho there will often be a need to make a slight distortion, such as bidding an appropriate number of notrump.

 

Mini-roman arises far more often, simply because 11-15 hands are more common than 17+ hands. However, standard methods should have no problem bidding these hands. Strong hands can be problematic because simple rebids may be non-forcing, and who likes to reverse or jumpshift with 4=4 shape in the bid suits, not to mention an unbid 4 card suit that may never be shown. These problems don't arise with the weaker openings, so using mini-roman is inventing a (bad) solution to a non-existent problem. FWIW, whenever I play against anyone with mini-roman on their CC, I assume I am playing against a weak pair, and I don't think I have ever been wrong about this.

 

As a historical note, mini-Roman, not surprisingly, also has it's roots in the original Roman Club system, starting out as a 2♣ opening to show a 12-16 HCP 3 suiter. Since almost everybody else uses 2♣ for some other purpose, 2♦ is substituted for the old Roman 2♣ bid.

 

I disagree that the primary reason for playing mini-Roman 2♦ is to handle the bidding of 4441 hands because they are difficult to bid, at least for those who know something about bidding theory. The main purpose should be to clarify that your other sequences show a real unbalanced hand, or a real balanced hand, or whatever your bidding sequence is trying to accomplish, as opposed to distorting your bidding when you have a 3 suiter.

[blackshoe]

[Edit: I will note that one time I *do* in fact go full SB is when people play non-GCC conventions in a GCC game. It's almost never that I think it's bad, or that I don't have a defence - it's just that if I don't get to play my toys because of the GCC, they don't get to play theirs. It's amazing, when it happens, how often they "have been playing it with no problem for years."]

What do you do if it's a game where the actual convention rules are uncertain? Around here, club owners never say what conventions are allowed or disallowed in advance - they handle things on a case by case basis. You'd think that if you were playing nothing but GCC legal stuff there'd be no problem, but that turns out not to be the case. I've had club owners tell me "you can play anything you like", only later to say, in effect, "except that".

[Vampyr]

I've had club owners tell me "you can play anything you like", only later to say, in effect, "except that".

 

I know of one club where you can play whatever you like if you provide notes to be posted in advance. I think that ordinary things like FP don't require this. Variable FP might, though.

[Cthulhu D]

What do you do if it's a game where the actual convention rules are uncertain? Around here, club owners never say what conventions are allowed or disallowed in advance - they handle things on a case by case basis. You'd think that if you were playing nothing but GCC legal stuff there'd be no problem, but that turns out not to be the case. I've had club owners tell me "you can play anything you like", only later to say, in effect, "except that".

 

My local club has 'brown sticker and HUMs banned on walk in nights, for events refer to the conditions of competition' (which will always ban HUMs but not BS) posted on their website. Why don't club owners turn to the ACBL rules on what is and is not okay?

 

I see a bit of the same stuff though, people continually wonder if transfer responses after 1C are banned by that (no), but are surprised that an overcall of 1NT for takeout is.

[The It]

Unless playing teams, I generally play rough 2C/2D with my partner - shows that minor and a major 5/4 either way round and up to a 9 count in 1st/2nd but weak to intermediate in 3rd/(4th). Responses involve POC major suit bids and bids enquiring about the length of opener's major.

 

We've had some great hands with this:

 

I opened 2♣* and LHO came in with 2H straight away. This passed out, so dummy came down, I then proceeded to draw trumps and get the beer card in at the end. (I say the beer card, but due to being under the legal age to drink, I've resorted to calling it the 'lemonade card'). That was all the match points!

 

In the 2 years or so I (and three other people - all of whom I have partnered) have been playing this, we've had one proper ACOL 2C opener come up and unfortunately it meant we wrong sided the slam. That's one in however many boards I've played. It provides a lot of good results when it's opened on the right hand.

 

 

Jon

[fromageGB]

I see a bit of the same stuff though, people continually wonder if transfer responses after 1C are banned by that (no)...

Less than a year ago a club chairman here took me to one side and said I shouldn't really be playing transfer responses, and even though I explained it was the same principle as making transfer responses to 1NT, he wasn't satisfied until I showed him they were both EBU level 3, the acceptability rating at that time. He didn't seem happy, though.

 

The EBU are to be congratulated on the new level 4 regulation (level 3 has been abandoned), because a number of illogical constraints have disappeared.

[mycroft]

Clubs can do what they like. I think that in most cases, "GCC unless posted" is a good way to assume; at least when I play my stupid systems (especially the ones that lean on the GCC pretty hard) I assume that. If someone has an issue, they can call the TD and ask if it's allowed in their game; I'm at least happy to stop.

 

Many clubs are a little relaxed; many more are stringent "for the newer players", at least in invitational games. My old club, for instance, didn't want any strong club or the like in their invitational games; but weak NT was okay (for some reason - idiosyncrasy is my guess).

[rmnka447]

Can you not, in your system, open1♦ and rebid 2♣?

No, not with a minimum hand. We adopted some parts from Kaplan's update of the K-S system. The germaine change adopted is an interchange of the 2 ♣ and 3 ♣ rebids. A 2 ♣ rebid shows at least reversing values while a 3 ♣ rebid shows a minimum hand presumably 5-5 minors or something close to it.

 

While such a change might sound ridiculous, it actually works out quite well. It gives us a lot more flexibility for opener to describe strong unbalanced hands. Playing weak NTs, minor openers are skewed much more toward strong hands ( about 66% of the time versus 25% of the time playing strong NTs). But the problem hand is the 1-4-4-4 hand where we're pretty much constrained to rebidding a 4 card ♦ suit.

[helene_t]

Once I ran into a pair that played

2♣ = 4 hearts (canape) or 6 hearts

2♦ = 4 spades (canape) or 6 spades

2M = Muiderberg

 

I think they didn't have any strong variants in those openings (they payed a strong club system).

 

I thought that was interesting.

[Zelandakh]

That sounds a lot like "Middlesex" Asptro converted to 2 level openings. I have heard some players swear by the idea of matching their 1NT defence and 2 level openings and indeed many 1NT defences can be converted to openings like this (where legal, anyway).